[Politics] The Reality-Based Community?
David V. Loewe, Jr
""Conservatives and Republicans report fewer experiences than liberals
or Democrats communicating with the dead, seeing ghosts and consulting
fortunetellers or psychics," the Pew study says. For example, 21 percent
of Republicans report that they have been in touch with someone who is
dead, while 36 percent of Democrats say they have done so. Eleven
percent of Republicans say they have seen a ghost, while 21 percent of
Democrats say so. And nine percent of Republicans say they have
consulted a fortuneteller, while 22 percent of Democrats have.
There's more. Seventeen percent of Republicans say they believe in
reincarnation, while 30 percent of Democrats do. Fourteen percent of
Republicans say they believe in astrology, while 31 percent of Democrats
do. Fifteen percent of Republicans say they view yoga as a spiritual
practice, while 31 percent of Democrats do. Seventeen percent of
Republicans say they believe in spiritual energy, while 30 percent of
Democrats do."
Curiouser and curiouser...
--
"Beware the fury of a patient man."
John Dryden
Konrad Gaertner
>
> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/New-study-More-Democrats-than-Republicans-believe-in-ghosts-talking-with-the-dead-fortunetellers-79162197.html
>
> ""Conservatives and Republicans report fewer experiences than liberals
> or Democrats communicating with the dead, seeing ghosts and consulting
> fortunetellers or psychics," the Pew study says. For example, 21 percent
> of Republicans report that they have been in touch with someone who is
> dead, while 36 percent of Democrats say they have done so. Eleven
> percent of Republicans say they have seen a ghost, while 21 percent of
> Democrats say so. And nine percent of Republicans say they have
> consulted a fortuneteller, while 22 percent of Democrats have.
When the question was changed to "religious or mystical experience",
the Democrat and Republican numbers were nearly equal, as were the
liberal and conservative. It was the independents and moderates who
were most grounded in reality:
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=490#6
--
Konrad Gaertner - - - - - - - - - - - - email: kgae...@tx.rr.com
http://kgbooklog.livejournal.com/
"I don't mind hidden depths but I insist that there be a surface."
-- James Nicoll
mev...@gcfn.org
>
> > ""Conservatives and Republicans report fewer experiences than liberals
> > or Democrats communicating with the dead, seeing ghosts and consulting
> > fortunetellers or psychics," the Pew study says. For example, 21 percent
> > of Republicans report that they have been in touch with someone who is
> > dead, while 36 percent of Democrats say they have done so. Eleven
> > percent of Republicans say they have seen a ghost, while 21 percent of
> > Democrats say so. And nine percent of Republicans say they have
> > consulted a fortuneteller, while 22 percent of Democrats have.
>
> When the question was changed to "religious or mystical experience",
> the Democrat and Republican numbers were nearly equal, as were the
> liberal and conservative. It was the independents and moderates who
> were most grounded in reality:
>
> http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=490#6
>
> --
> "I don't mind hidden depths but I insist that there be a surface."
> -- James Nicoll
Also note that the figures depend on what people report. It may be
that some groups are not as open as others.
Mark Evans
Kip Williams
> "David V. Loewe, Jr" wrote:
>>
>> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/New-study-More-Democrats-than-Republicans-believe-in-ghosts-talking-with-the-dead-fortunetellers-79162197.html
>>
>> ""Conservatives and Republicans report fewer experiences than liberals
>> or Democrats communicating with the dead, seeing ghosts and consulting
>> fortunetellers or psychics," the Pew study says. For example, 21 percent
>> of Republicans report that they have been in touch with someone who is
>> dead, while 36 percent of Democrats say they have done so. Eleven
>> percent of Republicans say they have seen a ghost, while 21 percent of
>> Democrats say so. And nine percent of Republicans say they have
>> consulted a fortuneteller, while 22 percent of Democrats have.
>
> When the question was changed to "religious or mystical experience",
> the Democrat and Republican numbers were nearly equal, as were the
> liberal and conservative. It was the independents and moderates who
> were most grounded in reality:
>
> http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=490#6
Republicans get more of their products from GOD-brand mysticism. Just
as, well, rational as spiritism, and more socially acceptable.
Kip W
Paul Ciszek
In article <9r1bi5h7rsk9etc47...@4ax.com>,
Notice that the survey mentions re-incarnation, but not other forms
of life-after death. It also makes no mention of how many Republicans
believe in people rising from the dead, that the Universe is only a
few thousand years old, or hold two-way conversations with their
imaginary friend. A former Republican president even went so far as
to claim that his imaginary friend had chosen him to lead the USA,
and no one on the right batted an eye.
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
Paul Ciszek
In article <hg5mh0$o75$3...@reader1.panix.com>,
Also, ask Republicans if they believe in "the power of prayer"
instead of "spiritual energy", "the will of God" instead of
"astrology", etc. and see what happens to those numbers.
David Loewe, Jr.
You miss the point.
>A former Republican president even went so far as
>to claim that his imaginary friend had chosen him to lead the USA,
>and no one on the right batted an eye.
The current Democratic Secretary Of State claimed she had conversations
with Eleanor Roosevelt back when the Secretary was the First Lady.
--
"Reading Solzhenitsyn makes it difficult to take seriously the
people in this culture who insist that Dissent has been squelched.
Brother, you have no idea."
James Lileks
David Friedman
nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> A former Republican president even went so far as
> to claim that his imaginary friend had chosen him to lead the USA,
> and no one on the right batted an eye.
I would have thought that that particular claim was quite a common
one--not only by presidents and kings and such, but by people in less
exalted positions. It seems to follow pretty directly from the usual
forms of religion--for everyone.
But if you get to include Christianity as evidence of irrationality, I
get to include environmentalism, at least in its stronger forms. Along
with the belief that the government has the magical power to give people
things created ex nihilo.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
David Friedman
nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> Also, ask Republicans if they believe in "the power of prayer"
> instead of "spiritual energy", "the will of God" instead of
> "astrology", etc. and see what happens to those numbers.
>
I don't think your second case works. The problem with astrology is that
it claims to make actual predictions, so it requires some effort to keep
believing in it after the predictions turn out to be false--although not
a lot of effort, if the predictions are suitably vague. The will of God
doesn't raise that problem.
I've just been rereading _Point of Hopes_, and admiring the excellent
job the authors do of sketching the setting. That's a world where
astrology is taken very seriously--and pretty clearly, the reason is
that in that world it works.
David V. Loewe, Jr
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>
>> A former Republican president even went so far as
>> to claim that his imaginary friend had chosen him to lead the USA,
>> and no one on the right batted an eye.
>
>I would have thought that that particular claim was quite a common
>one--not only by presidents and kings and such, but by people in less
>exalted positions. It seems to follow pretty directly from the usual
>forms of religion--for everyone.
>
>But if you get to include Christianity as evidence of irrationality, I
>get to include environmentalism, at least in its stronger forms. Along
>with the belief that the government has the magical power to give people
>things created ex nihilo.
Paul misses the point - badly. Republicans/conservatives do not refer
to themselves as the "reality-based community." But it turns out that
those who DO refer to themselves in that manner have all kinds of
irrational beliefs of their own - as many, if not more than those they
deride.
--
"You tell 'em I'M coming... and Hell's coming with me, you hear?!
Hell's coming with me!"
- Kurt Russell as Wyatt Earp in Tombstone
Will in New Haven
> In article <9r1bi5h7rsk9etc47bjkkc803orlrvd...@4ax.com>,
> David V. Loewe, Jr <davelo...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/...
>
> >""Conservatives and Republicans report fewer experiences than liberals
> >or Democrats communicating with the dead, seeing ghosts and consulting
> >fortunetellers or psychics," the Pew study says. For example, 21 percent
> >of Republicans report that they have been in touch with someone who is
> >dead, while 36 percent of Democrats say they have done so. Eleven
> >percent of Republicans say they have seen a ghost, while 21 percent of
> >Democrats say so. And nine percent of Republicans say they have
> >consulted a fortuneteller, while 22 percent of Democrats have.
>
> >There's more. Seventeen percent of Republicans say they believe in
> >reincarnation, while 30 percent of Democrats do. Fourteen percent of
> >Republicans say they believe in astrology, while 31 percent of Democrats
> >do. Fifteen percent of Republicans say they view yoga as a spiritual
> >practice, while 31 percent of Democrats do. Seventeen percent of
> >Republicans say they believe in spiritual energy, while 30 percent of
> >Democrats do."
>
> >Curiouser and curiouser...
>
> Notice that the survey mentions re-incarnation, but not other forms
> of life-after death. It also makes no mention of how many Republicans
> believe in people rising from the dead, that the Universe is only a
> few thousand years old, or hold two-way conversations with their
> imaginary friend. A former Republican president even went so far as
> to claim that his imaginary friend had chosen him to lead the USA,
> and no one on the right batted an eye.
"No one on the right batted an eye?" I batted several eyes myself and
I know many other right-libertarians and Goldwater Republicans who did
also. Not being able to stomach the current Republican Party does not
disqualify one from being on the right.
--
Will in New Haven
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:44:13 -0800, David Friedman
>
>
>
>
>
> <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> > nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>
> >> A former Republican president even went so far as
> >> to claim that his imaginary friend had chosen him to lead the USA,
> >> and no one on the right batted an eye.
>
> >I would have thought that that particular claim was quite a common
> >one--not only by presidents and kings and such, but by people in less
> >exalted positions. It seems to follow pretty directly from the usual
> >forms of religion--for everyone.
>
> >But if you get to include Christianity as evidence of irrationality, I
> >get to include environmentalism, at least in its stronger forms. Along
> >with the belief that the government has the magical power to give people
> >things created ex nihilo.
>
> Paul misses the point - badly. Republicans/conservatives do not refer
> to themselves as the "reality-based community." But it turns out that
> those who DO refer to themselves in that manner have all kinds of
> irrational beliefs of their own - as many, if not more than those they
> deride.
I don't think that the Democrats or liberals refer to all of
themselves as "the reality-based community." People who don't want
creationism taught in public schools and would like to keep religion
in general out of our political lives, which includes some people on
the right like myself, use that term. At least I use it on
talk.origins when I am not telling some creationist to light himself
on fire.
But yes, there are many looney-toons in the Democratic Party.
David Loewe, Jr.
The problem is that the Democrats/liberals like to paint all of the
libertarian/conservative/Republican persons with the same brush.
>But yes, there are many looney-toons in the Democratic Party.
--
"There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool
following it."
- Laurence VanCott Niven
David Friedman
<17b5c2a7-8e9a-4f2e...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> I don't think that the Democrats or liberals refer to all of
> themselves as "the reality-based community."
At a slight tangent ... . As best I can tell, the phrase comes from an
account by someone almost certainly a Democrat of a conversation he
claims to have had with someone in the Bush administration, an account
that has not been confirmed from any other source. It might, of course,
be true. But the willingness of people who want to believe it is true to
do so with confidence suggests that their respect for reality, as
determined by evidence, may be a little shaky.
David Friedman
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >I don't think that the Democrats or liberals refer to all of
> >themselves as "the reality-based community." People who don't want
> >creationism taught in public schools and would like to keep religion
> >in general out of our political lives, which includes some people on
> >the right like myself, use that term. At least I use it on
> >talk.origins when I am not telling some creationist to light himself
> >on fire.
>
> The problem is that the Democrats/liberals like to paint all of the
> libertarian/conservative/Republican persons with the same brush.
In another newsgroup, I was just responding to someone who appears to
believe that the only reasons anyone would be skeptical of the usual
account of global warning are:
1. Fundamentalist christianity.
2. The belief that it's a communist plot.
Paul Ciszek
In article <8ctci5pgqu9ban4qi...@4ax.com>,
>to themselves as the "reality-based community." But it turns out that
>those who DO refer to themselves in that manner have all kinds of
>irrational beliefs of their own - as many, if not more than those they
>deride.
It seems you missed the point, badly--"Reality-based community" is a
term coined BY conservatives to describe liberals:
The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, New York
Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide
to George W. Bush:
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-
based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions
emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's
not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an
empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.
David Friedman
nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> In article <8ctci5pgqu9ban4qi...@4ax.com>,
> David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> >Paul misses the point - badly. Republicans/conservatives do not refer
> >to themselves as the "reality-based community." But it turns out that
> >those who DO refer to themselves in that manner have all kinds of
> >irrational beliefs of their own - as many, if not more than those they
> >deride.
>
> It seems you missed the point, badly--"Reality-based community" is a
> term coined BY conservatives to describe liberals:
More precisely, a term that a liberal says, on the authority of his
memory of an unsourced conversation, was coined by conservatives to
describe liberals. Is there any evidence to support his account? If not,
shouldn't people who believe in the judicious study of reality be a
little less willing than they are to take it as gospel?
> The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, New York
> Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide
> to George W. Bush:
>
> The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-
> based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions
> emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's
> not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an
> empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.
And, of course, the people who now use the term--so far as I know,
everyone who has been observed, by anyone other than Suskind, to use the
term in this context--are liberals, congratulating themselves on their
superiority to conservatives.
David Loewe, Jr.
Ciszek) wrote:
>David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>Paul misses the point - badly. Republicans/conservatives do not refer
>>to themselves as the "reality-based community." But it turns out that
>>those who DO refer to themselves in that manner have all kinds of
>>irrational beliefs of their own - as many, if not more than those they
>>deride.
>
>It seems you missed the point, badly--"Reality-based community" is a
>term coined BY conservatives to describe liberals:
It seems that you have missed the point entirely - "reality-based
community" has been *adopted* proudly by the liberals to describe
themselves.
HTH
HAND
>The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, New York
>Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide
>to George W. Bush:
>
> The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-
>based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions
>emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's
>not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an
>empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.
--
"1a) Never throw shit at an armed man.
1b) Never stand next to someone who is throwing shit at
an armed man."
-Laurence VanCott Niven
Kip Williams
> I've just been rereading _Point of Hopes_, and admiring the excellent
> job the authors do of sketching the setting. That's a world where
> astrology is taken very seriously--and pretty clearly, the reason is
> that in that world it works.
One of the many things I liked in reading _I, Claudius_ and _Claudius
the God_ was the matter-of-fact way astrology and other types of
divination were treated. Not quite as mere matters of form (though at
least one character clearly felt that way), but as something taken
almost for granted as part of the background fabric of life.
Kip W
Paul Ciszek
In article <ddfr-9BDA7E.0...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
>But if you get to include Christianity as evidence of irrationality, I
>get to include environmentalism, at least in its stronger forms. Along
>with the belief that the government has the magical power to give people
>things created ex nihilo.
The quiz is *already* including religious beliefs outside of Christianity
as evidence of irrationality; including some questions that test for
Christianity would just be evening things up.
Karl Johanson
> It seems that you have missed the point entirely - "reality-based
> community" has been *adopted* proudly by the liberals to describe
> themselves.
I'm a liberal and I don't use the term.
Karl Johanson
Okay you've convinced me. The US is a hotbed of superstition.
Karl Johanson
Keith F. Lynch
> Okay you've convinced me. The US is a hotbed of superstition.
I will pray for this to change.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Keith F. Lynch
> disqualify one from being on the right.
Newt Gingrich claimed that "the Republicans have learned some painful
lessons," when I pointed out to him during Saturday's book signing
that there wasn't much difference between Republicans and Democrats
there days, as both favored a larger, more intrusive government,
higher taxes, a *much* higher federal debt, and a reduction in
individual liberties.
The signing was poorly attended. Only about 50 people, most of whom
just happened to be in the store at the time. This is probably
because it was so poorly publicized. I only knew about it because I
had seen the sign in the store the previous week. I couldn't find
anything about online or in the newspaper.
Keith F. Lynch
> Also, ask Republicans if they believe in "the power of prayer"
> instead of "spiritual energy", "the will of God" instead of
> "astrology", etc. and see what happens to those numbers.
It gets worse:
ASHEVILLE -- North Carolina's constitution is clear: politicians who
deny the existence of God are barred from holding office.
Opponents of Cecil Bothwell are seizing on that law to argue he should
not be seated as a City Council member today, ...
Thanks to former rasff poster Gary McGath for the link.
David V. Loewe, Jr
I refuse to further qualify obvious generalizations for the benefit of
anal-retentive nit-pickers.
--
"The worst crime against working people is a company which fails to
operate at a profit."
- Samuel Gompers (1908)
Karl Johanson
> <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote
>>
>>> It seems that you have missed the point entirely - "reality-based
>>> community" has been *adopted* proudly by the liberals to describe
>>> themselves.
>>
>>I'm a liberal and I don't use the term.
>
> I refuse to further qualify obvious generalizations for the benefit of
> anal-retentive nit-pickers.
I see why you'd say that; considering that people named "David" have trouble
writing "some liberals" instead of "the liberals." I mean the former has a
whole extra letter!
Karl Johanson
David Friedman
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > Also, ask Republicans if they believe in "the power of prayer"
> > instead of "spiritual energy", "the will of God" instead of
> > "astrology", etc. and see what happens to those numbers.
>
> It gets worse:
>
> ASHEVILLE -- North Carolina's constitution is clear: politicians who
> deny the existence of God are barred from holding office.
>
> Opponents of Cecil Bothwell are seizing on that law to argue he should
> not be seated as a City Council member today, ...
>
Interesting question. Has the incorporation doctrine ever been applied
against a state constitution, as opposed to state legislation?
Karl Johanson
>> Okay you've convinced me. The US is a hotbed of superstition.
>
> I will pray for this to change.
It's unlucky to pray on days with the letter "a" in the name.
Karl Johanson
Tim McDaniel
<ddfr-821B55.2...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>Has the incorporation doctrine ever been applied against a state
>constitution, as opposed to state legislation?
Why not? The federal supremacy, for a related example, applies over
all state law, whether constitutional or not. It was proposed in the
Convention that Federal law ought to override state law but not state
constitutions, but the obvious objection is that, in such a case, any
state could override any Federal law simply by amending it in its
state consitution. A state is perfectly free to make the state
constitution amendable in the same way as a regular law (though it
might find it prudent to entrench the real constitutional provisions).
So in such a system, Federal supremacy would fail immediately.
[checking a source] Luther Martin proposed it in July, the Convention
passed it unanimously, the Committee of Detail noticed the loophole
and added "the constitutions or", the amended version passed in the
Convention without Luther Martin apparently noticing, Luther Martin
later took heat for it.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
David Friedman
tm...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
> In article
> <ddfr-821B55.2...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> >Has the incorporation doctrine ever been applied against a state
> >constitution, as opposed to state legislation?
>
> Why not? The federal supremacy, for a related example, applies over
> all state law, whether constitutional or not.
It seems plausible. But I gather there is some question as to just where
the doctrine does or doesn't apply. Last I heard, it was still
undetermined whether the support of the Second Amendment by the current
court did or didn't restrict state as well as federal gun laws.
Paul Ciszek
In article <8ctci5pgqu9ban4qi...@4ax.com>,
David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>Paul misses the point - badly. Republicans/conservatives do not refer
>to themselves as the "reality-based community." But it turns out that
>those who DO refer to themselves in that manner have all kinds of
>irrational beliefs of their own - as many, if not more than those they
>deride.
Provided you carefully define spiritual beliefs that lie outside of
Christianity as irrational (re-incarnation, ghosts, "spiritual energy")
but not those that are more common within Christianity (heaven/hell,
demons, prayer). Any Hindu, Buddhist, or Neopagan is automatically
"irrational" according to the sorts of questions asked in your
survey, while Christians are not. I think *you* are missing the point
badly if you can't see how biased the test is.
Paul Ciszek
In article <7voci595csoa3kf3s...@4ax.com>,
David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:44:32 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
>Ciszek) wrote:
>
>The current Democratic Secretary Of State claimed she had conversations
>with Eleanor Roosevelt back when the Secretary was the First Lady.
Did she claim to have actual conversations, or was it an intellectual
exercise along the lines of asking oneself, "What would Miles Vorkosigan
do in this situation?"
--
Please reply to: | Keep backups, back out of your problems, go
pciszek at panix dot com | forward slowly and ask yourself in your darkest
Autoreply is disabled | hours, "What would the Lone Ranger do?"
Paul Ciszek
In article <V9EVm.68279$de6....@newsfe21.iad>,
I agree.
--
Please reply to: | "A single pair of hands at work can accomplish
pciszek at panix dot com | more than a thousand clasped in prayer."
Autoreply is disabled |
Kip Williams
> In article<7voci595csoa3kf3s...@4ax.com>,
> David Loewe, Jr.<dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:44:32 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
>> Ciszek) wrote:
>>
>> The current Democratic Secretary Of State claimed she had conversations
>> with Eleanor Roosevelt back when the Secretary was the First Lady.
>
> Did she claim to have actual conversations, or was it an intellectual
> exercise along the lines of asking oneself, "What would Miles Vorkosigan
> do in this situation?"
I used to receive pedagogic criticisms from one of my former piano
teachers. His voice, which I knew was imaginary, was an inspiration for
me to do better. Alas, it's harder for me to summon it up now. I still
need it.
His son is on Facebook. I wrote him a little while back and told him how
much his dad's teaching had meant to me. He (my friend) didn't know I'd
ever taken from his father.
Kip W
Kip Williams
> "David V. Loewe, Jr"<dave...@charter.net> wrote
>> There's more. Seventeen percent of Republicans say they believe in
>> reincarnation, while 30 percent of Democrats do. Fourteen percent of
>> Republicans say they believe in astrology, while 31 percent of Democrats
>> do. Fifteen percent of Republicans say they view yoga as a spiritual
>> practice, while 31 percent of Democrats do. Seventeen percent of
>> Republicans say they believe in spiritual energy, while 30 percent of
>> Democrats do."
>
> Okay you've convinced me. The US is a hotbed of superstition.
I remember seeing Pat Robertson on TV fulminating against astrology and
fortunetellers and such. This, back in the day when he was still telling
people to put their hand on the TV and be healed. At the time, I summed
his objections up as "Scram! I'm already working this side of the
street. Those Social Security checks are Mine!"
Kip W
Kip Williams
Batman will understand.
Kip W
David Loewe, Jr.
Ciszek) wrote:
>David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>Paul misses the point - badly. Republicans/conservatives do not refer
>>to themselves as the "reality-based community." But it turns out that
>>those who DO refer to themselves in that manner have all kinds of
>>irrational beliefs of their own - as many, if not more than those they
>>deride.
>
>Provided you carefully define spiritual beliefs that lie outside of
>Christianity as irrational (re-incarnation, ghosts, "spiritual energy")
>but not those that are more common within Christianity (heaven/hell,
>demons, prayer). Any Hindu, Buddhist, or Neopagan is automatically
>"irrational" according to the sorts of questions asked in your
>survey, while Christians are not. I think *you* are missing the point
>badly if you can't see how biased the test is.
Once again, you miss the point. Which part of "as many, if not more"
have "all kinds of irrational beliefs of their own" is not registering
for you? The point is NOT that there are definitely more, it is that
there are AT LEAST as many. They are *no more* "reality-based" than the
people they deride.
--
"The more I know, the less I understand
All the things I thought I figured out,
I have to learn again"
Don Henley, Mike Campbell & JD Souther
Paul Ciszek
In article <ddfr-1DC946.0...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>In article <hg5mnl$o75$4...@reader1.panix.com>,
> nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>
>> Also, ask Republicans if they believe in "the power of prayer"
>> instead of "spiritual energy", "the will of God" instead of
>> "astrology", etc. and see what happens to those numbers.
>>
>
>it claims to make actual predictions, so it requires some effort to keep
>believing in it after the predictions turn out to be false--although not
>a lot of effort, if the predictions are suitably vague. The will of God
>doesn't raise that problem.
OK, how about "the prophecies contained in the Book of Revelation" instead?
Every decade or so someone maps the ravings of St. John onto current events,
naming some Democrat as the Antichrist, identifying Gog and Magog with
certain foreign powers, and claiming that The Rapture is just around the
corner: http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcn/16151713/
The fact that the Rapture hasn't happened the last umpteen times it was
supposed to doesn't deter these people from believing "This time, for
sure!". Surely that takes at least as much effort as beleiving in
Astrology?
David Friedman
nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> The fact that the Rapture hasn't happened the last umpteen times it was
> supposed to doesn't deter these people from believing "This time, for
> sure!". Surely that takes at least as much effort as beleiving in
> Astrology?
Or as much effort as believing in the catastrophe due to overpopulation,
resource depletion, and related problems, that has been predicted over
and over for at least the last century and probably longer?
Paul Ciszek
In article <muefi59t6pb0r8uqd...@4ax.com>,
>Ciszek) wrote:
>
>>David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Paul misses the point - badly. Republicans/conservatives do not refer
>>>to themselves as the "reality-based community." But it turns out that
>>>those who DO refer to themselves in that manner have all kinds of
>>>irrational beliefs of their own - as many, if not more than those they
>>>deride.
>>
>>Provided you carefully define spiritual beliefs that lie outside of
>>Christianity as irrational (re-incarnation, ghosts, "spiritual energy")
>>but not those that are more common within Christianity (heaven/hell,
>>demons, prayer). Any Hindu, Buddhist, or Neopagan is automatically
>>"irrational" according to the sorts of questions asked in your
>>survey, while Christians are not. I think *you* are missing the point
>>badly if you can't see how biased the test is.
>
>Once again, you miss the point. Which part of "as many, if not more"
>have "all kinds of irrational beliefs of their own" is not registering
>for you? The point is NOT that there are definitely more, it is that
>there are AT LEAST as many. They are *no more* "reality-based" than the
>people they deride.
Wrong. There are more Evangelical Christians on the political right than
there are New Agers on the political left, so a fair an balanced count
would still show more contra-reality woo on the right than on the left.
David V. Loewe, Jr
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>
>> The fact that the Rapture hasn't happened the last umpteen times it was
>> supposed to doesn't deter these people from believing "This time, for
>> sure!". Surely that takes at least as much effort as beleiving in
>> Astrology?
>
>Or as much effort as believing in the catastrophe due to overpopulation,
>resource depletion, and related problems, that has been predicted over
>and over for at least the last century and probably longer?
Heh...
See signature...
--
"By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth's population
to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people."
Paul Ehrlich 1969
David V. Loewe, Jr
Ciszek) wrote:
>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 07:06:07 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
>>Ciszek) wrote:
>>>David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Paul misses the point - badly. Republicans/conservatives do not refer
>>>>to themselves as the "reality-based community." But it turns out that
>>>>those who DO refer to themselves in that manner have all kinds of
>>>>irrational beliefs of their own - as many, if not more than those they
>>>>deride.
>>>
>>>Provided you carefully define spiritual beliefs that lie outside of
>>>Christianity as irrational (re-incarnation, ghosts, "spiritual energy")
>>>but not those that are more common within Christianity (heaven/hell,
>>>demons, prayer). Any Hindu, Buddhist, or Neopagan is automatically
>>>"irrational" according to the sorts of questions asked in your
>>>survey, while Christians are not. I think *you* are missing the point
>>>badly if you can't see how biased the test is.
>>
>>Once again, you miss the point. Which part of "as many, if not more"
>>have "all kinds of irrational beliefs of their own" is not registering
>>for you? The point is NOT that there are definitely more, it is that
>>there are AT LEAST as many. They are *no more* "reality-based" than the
>>people they deride.
>
>Wrong. There are more Evangelical Christians on the political right than
>there are New Agers on the political left,
Prove it.
>so a fair an balanced count
>would still show more contra-reality woo on the right than on the left.
Konrad already showed that the numbers were about equal when using your
criteria in the very first response that the thread generated, Paul.
"When the question was changed to "religious or mystical experience",
the Democrat and Republican numbers were nearly equal, as were the
liberal and conservative."
--
"Trust me... I know what I'm doing."
- Sledge Hammer
David Friedman
nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> >Once again, you miss the point. Which part of "as many, if not more"
> >have "all kinds of irrational beliefs of their own" is not registering
> >for you? The point is NOT that there are definitely more, it is that
> >there are AT LEAST as many. They are *no more* "reality-based" than the
> >people they deride.
>
> Wrong. There are more Evangelical Christians on the political right than
> there are New Agers on the political left, so a fair an balanced count
> would still show more contra-reality woo on the right than on the left.
Unless one expands "contra-reality woo" to people who talk about global
warming in terms of sea level rises that will flood most of Florida,
population growth as a guarantor of mass famine--how many people on the
left drank that kool-aid forty years ago?--and the like.
And I wouldn't be all that sure, even in your terms, that Republicans
are more likely to be Christians, even serious Christians, than
Democrats. Do we have data on that?
David Loewe, Jr.
<karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote
>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:17:13 -0800, "Karl Johanson"
>> <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> It seems that you have missed the point entirely - "reality-based
>>>> community" has been *adopted* proudly by the liberals to describe
>>>> themselves.
>>>
>>>I'm a liberal and I don't use the term.
>>
>> I refuse to further qualify obvious generalizations for the benefit of
>> anal-retentive nit-pickers.
>
>I see why you'd say that; considering that people named "David" have trouble
>writing "some liberals" instead of "the liberals." I mean the former has a
>whole extra letter!
Again. Which part of "obvious generalization" is not computing?
--
"The only universal message in science fiction: There exist minds that
think as well as you do, but differently."
- Laurence VanCott Niven
Kip Williams
> OK, how about "the prophecies contained in the Book of Revelation" instead?
> Every decade or so someone maps the ravings of St. John onto current events,
> naming some Democrat as the Antichrist, identifying Gog and Magog with
> certain foreign powers, and claiming that The Rapture is just around the
> corner: http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcn/16151713/
>
> The fact that the Rapture hasn't happened the last umpteen times it was
> supposed to doesn't deter these people from believing "This time, for
> sure!". Surely that takes at least as much effort as beleiving in
> Astrology?
They just figure the last bunch of guys was wrong, but they have it right.
See also: Nostradamus. If you look at older books on his predictions,
they will have examined the same quatrains we've seen quoted on TV as
proof that N preducted Hitler and the JFK assassination, only those
silly misguided primitive people foolishly believed that he was talking
about some tinpot dictator of their day, and the death of some dashing
young duke. How present day Nostradamologists must chuckle at the
naivete of their predecessors.
Kip W
Keith F. Lynch
Not if you have a lucky rabbit's foot, as I do. My rabbit's foot is
so lucky that it's still on the rabbit. And the rabbit is so lucky
that it's still running around wild rather than in my possession.
I also have a lucky horseshoe, which is still on the horse, which is
possessed not by me but by someone capabale of taking much better care
of the animal.
And I possess an unbroken mirror. That's seven years' good luck,
isn't it? I also have some salt that hasn't been spilled. And there
are *millions* of black cats that have never crossed my path, and a
similar number of ladders I've never walked under.
Doug Wickström
Ciszek) wrote:
>A former Republican president even went so far as
>to claim that his imaginary friend had chosen him to lead the USA,
How do you know that it wasn't true?
--
Doug Wickström
Doug Wickström
Ciszek) wrote:
>In article <V9EVm.68279$de6....@newsfe21.iad>,
>Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote
>>> Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>> Okay you've convinced me. The US is a hotbed of superstition.
>>>
>>> I will pray for this to change.
>>
>>It's unlucky to pray on days with the letter "a" in the name.
>
>I agree.
Dafor muss wie bieten am Mittwoch.
--
Doug Wickström
Doug Wickström
Ciszek) wrote:
>There are more Evangelical Christians on the political right than
>there are New Agers on the political left, so a fair an balanced count
>would still show more contra-reality woo on the right than on the left.
Citation, please? I am not aware of any statistical study
supporting your assertion.
--
Doug Wickström
David Goldfarb
Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com, mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>One of the many things I liked in reading _I, Claudius_ and _Claudius
>the God_ was the matter-of-fact way astrology and other types of
>divination were treated. Not quite as mere matters of form (though at
>least one character clearly felt that way), but as something taken
>almost for granted as part of the background fabric of life.
Most everything I've read I've read about the ancient world suggests
to me that that's how things were. (I should read Cicero's _De
Divinatione_ sometime.) Graves's diviners and prophets had an
unfair advantage, of course.
--
David Goldfarb | From the fortune cookie file:
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | "You will have gold pieces by the bushel."
David Goldfarb
I don't think it requires a statistical study to notice that
Evangelical Christians had a noticeable effect on Bush
Administration/Republican policies (remember "faith-based initiatives"?)
while New Agers have none on Obama/Democrat ones.
--
David Goldfarb |"The gentle journey jars to stop;
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | The drifting dream is done.
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | The long gone goblins loom ahead;
| The deadly, that we thought were dead,
| Stand waiting, every one." -- Walt Kelly
David Goldfarb
David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>The problem is that the Democrats/liberals like to paint all of the
>libertarian/conservative/Republican persons with the same brush.
And you don't think the reverse is true? From where I'm standing
as a Democrat/liberal it certainly seems to be.
--
David Goldfarb |"It doesn't matter. Don't you see? Nothing matters!"
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- Fredric Brown, "Come and Go Mad"
David Friedman
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
> In article <483di593mbphs2ijp...@4ax.com>,
> David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >The problem is that the Democrats/liberals like to paint all of the
> >libertarian/conservative/Republican persons with the same brush.
>
> And you don't think the reverse is true? From where I'm standing
> as a Democrat/liberal it certainly seems to be.
I think a more precise statement would be that many Democrat/liberals
like to paint all libertarian/conservative/Republican persons with the
same brush, and many libertarians, conservatives, and Republicans like
to ... .
Is there a clear division on the Democratic side corresponding to
libertarian vs conservative on the Republican side? _Reason_ cited some
polling figures a while back which suggested that by his second run,
Bush had lost quite a lot of the libertarian vote, although he still had
more than half of it.
Doug Wickström
(David Goldfarb) wrote:
>In article <9mmgi55uv27itmt6i...@4ax.com>,
>Doug Wickstr?<nims...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:31:18 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
>>Ciszek) wrote:
>>
>>>There are more Evangelical Christians on the political right than
>>>there are New Agers on the political left, so a fair an balanced count
>>>would still show more contra-reality woo on the right than on the left.
>>
>>Citation, please? I am not aware of any statistical study
>>supporting your assertion.
>
>I don't think it requires a statistical study to notice that
>Evangelical Christians had a noticeable effect on Bush
>Administration/Republican policies (remember "faith-based initiatives"?)
>while New Agers have none on Obama/Democrat ones.
Apparently you've missed the "earth is our mother" religious
wackos.
--
Doug Wickström
Paul Ciszek
In article <5amgi55n2n5aere1m...@4ax.com>,
Because God told me Dubya was full of shit.
You question my assertion? Disprove it. See how that works?
Kip Williams
> In article<GrzVm.31807$gd1....@newsfe05.iad>,
> Kip Williams<k...@rochester.rr.com, mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> One of the many things I liked in reading _I, Claudius_ and _Claudius
>> the God_ was the matter-of-fact way astrology and other types of
>> divination were treated. Not quite as mere matters of form (though at
>> least one character clearly felt that way), but as something taken
>> almost for granted as part of the background fabric of life.
>
> Most everything I've read I've read about the ancient world suggests
> to me that that's how things were. (I should read Cicero's _De
> Divinatione_ sometime.) Graves's diviners and prophets had an
> unfair advantage, of course.
Yes. I thought that Graves hit the right note, incluing readers without
the use of a large, labeled stick.
Kip W
David Loewe, Jr.
Goldfarb) wrote:
>Doug Wickstr�m <nims...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:31:18 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
>>Ciszek) wrote:
>>
>>>There are more Evangelical Christians on the political right than
>>>there are New Agers on the political left, so a fair an balanced count
>>>would still show more contra-reality woo on the right than on the left.
>>
>>Citation, please? I am not aware of any statistical study
>>supporting your assertion.
>
>I don't think it requires a statistical study to notice that
>Evangelical Christians had a noticeable effect on Bush
>Administration/Republican policies (remember "faith-based initiatives"?)
>while New Agers have none on Obama/Democrat ones.
I come from a forensic speech background where you have to prove most
everything when challenged on it.
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what
they conceal is vital."
- Aaron Levenstein
David V. Loewe, Jr
Goldfarb) wrote:
Where did all the context go?
Long time passing...
>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>The problem is that the Democrats/liberals like to paint all of the
>>libertarian/conservative/Republican persons with the same brush.
>
>And you don't think the reverse is true? From where I'm standing
>as a Democrat/liberal it certainly seems to be.
--
"You seem to think that I disagree with you because you are the leftmost
point of the political spectrum. Not so. I disagree with you because
you are a gibbering idiot."
- Daniel Seriff
Michael Stemper
>Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>> Okay you've convinced me. The US is a hotbed of superstition.
>
>>> I will pray for this to change.
>
>> It's unlucky to pray on days with the letter "a" in the name.
>
>Not if you have a lucky rabbit's foot, as I do. My rabbit's foot is
>so lucky that it's still on the rabbit. And the rabbit is so lucky
>that it's still running around wild rather than in my possession.
I would suggest that "Teela" would be a good name for this rabbit.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
A preposition is something that you should never end a sentence with.
Kip Williams
> In article<hg9dkl$its$7...@reader1.panix.com>, "Keith F. Lynch"<k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>> Not if you have a lucky rabbit's foot, as I do. My rabbit's foot is
>> so lucky that it's still on the rabbit. And the rabbit is so lucky
>> that it's still running around wild rather than in my possession.
>
> I would suggest that "Teela" would be a good name for this rabbit.
"Smeerp" and "Esquilax" are also nice.
Kip W
Doug Wickström
Ciszek) wrote:
>
>In article <5amgi55n2n5aere1m...@4ax.com>,
>Doug Wickstr?<nims...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:44:32 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
>>Ciszek) wrote:
>>
>>>A former Republican president even went so far as
>>>to claim that his imaginary friend had chosen him to lead the USA,
>>
>>How do you know that it wasn't true?
>
>Because God told me Dubya was full of shit.
>
>You question my assertion? Disprove it. See how that works?
That was rather my point.
--
Doug Wickström
David Goldfarb
>everything when challenged on it.
And yet when people call you on your generalizations, you're very
quick to cry "It's just a generalization, stop nitpicking!"
--
David Goldfarb | "No-one in the world ever gets what they want
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | And that is beautiful.
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | Everybody dies frustrated and sad
| And that is beautiful." -- TMBG
David V. Loewe, Jr
Goldfarb) wrote:
Where did the context go? You have a history of deleting needed and
important context,
>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>I come from a forensic speech background where you have to prove most
>>everything when challenged on it.
>
>And yet when people call you on your generalizations, you're very
>quick to cry "It's just a generalization, stop nitpicking!"
You didn't give a generalization AND you snipped it away so that it
isn't readily visible that you didn't. It is called lying by omission.
I'll add it back in (with proper quoting notations) so that it can be
readily seen that you made a specific comment that needs proof.
>>>I don't think it requires a statistical study to notice that
>>>Evangelical Christians had a noticeable effect on Bush
>>>Administration/Republican policies (remember "faith-based initiatives"?)
>>>while New Agers have none on Obama/Democrat ones.
You say that a study is not needed. How is that a generalization?
You need to prove that "New Agers" have no impact on Obama/Democratic
policies. I'd say that the "Gaia" worshippers have quite an impact on
environmental policy.
--
"...how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of
one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor.
You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as
doubling carbon dioxide."
Doctor Reid Bryson
Karl Johanson
news:hgb87r$477$7...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <hg9dkl$its$7...@reader1.panix.com>, "Keith F. Lynch"
> <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>>> Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>>>> Okay you've convinced me. The US is a hotbed of superstition.
>>
>>>> I will pray for this to change.
>>
>>> It's unlucky to pray on days with the letter "a" in the name.
>>
>>Not if you have a lucky rabbit's foot, as I do. My rabbit's foot is
>>so lucky that it's still on the rabbit. And the rabbit is so lucky
>>that it's still running around wild rather than in my possession.
>
> I would suggest that "Teela" would be a good name for this rabbit.
And feed the rabbit parsnips or yams instead of carrots!
Karl Johanson
Keith F. Lynch
> And feed the rabbit parsnips or yams instead of carrots!
To get a Pak Protector rabbit? I think that would be a very, very
bad idea, if you happen to be human rather than a rabbit. Remember
that Pak are very, very smart and will do *anything* to protect
their offspring.
Karl Johanson
>> And feed the rabbit parsnips or yams instead of carrots!
>
> To get a Pak Protector rabbit?
Waiting for the rabbit to turn 42 will be a bother. Oldest rabbit I ever had
was 16.
> I think that would be a very, very
> bad idea, if you happen to be human rather than a rabbit. Remember
> that Pak are very, very smart and will do *anything* to protect
> their offspring.
I was thinking of a childless rabbit. Of course it might be interested in
its other relatives, or the whole species...
Karl Johanson
David Harmon
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote,
>In article <483di593mbphs2ijp...@4ax.com>,
>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>The problem is that the Democrats/liberals like to paint all of the
>>libertarian/conservative/Republican persons with the same brush.
>
>And you don't think the reverse is true? From where I'm standing
>as a Democrat/liberal it certainly seems to be.
As a libertarian, I'd like to paint Democrats and Republicans with the
same brush. Giant bank bailouts. More ground war in Asia. Pork for
whoever gave the biggest campaign contributions. And on and on.
David Harmon
Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote,
>Where did the context go? You have a history of deleting needed and
>important context,
Nothing is deleted.
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
He did indeed delete it from his reply.
--
"The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be
pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues."
- Elizabeth Taylor
David Harmon
Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,
>On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:14:49 -0800, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:23:34 -0600 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David V.
>>Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote,
>
>>>Where did the context go? You have a history of deleting needed and
>>>important context,
>>
>>Nothing is deleted.
>
>He did indeed delete it from his reply.
Or perhaps it was never there in the first place.
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:48:01 -0600 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David Loewe,
>Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,
>>On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:14:49 -0800, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com>
>>wrote:
>>>On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:23:34 -0600 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David V.
>>>Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote,
>>
>>>>Where did the context go? You have a history of deleting needed and
>>>>important context,
>>>
>>>Nothing is deleted.
>>
>>He did indeed delete it from his reply.
>
>Or perhaps it was never there in the first place.
It was in the message he quoted...
Are you going to keep shooting yourself in the foot like this? Because
this little episode is making me believe you have suddenly become
really, really STUPID. I know you probably don't care much what I think
about you, but this is pretty damned egregious. It was there. It had
to be edited out.
--
"I don't mind you *thinking* I'm stupid, but don't *talk* to me
like I'm stupid."
- Harlan Ellison
Michael Stemper
>Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> And feed the rabbit parsnips or yams instead of carrots!
>
>To get a Pak Protector rabbit? I think that would be a very, very
>bad idea,
I think that getting a rabbit from Breeder to Protector as soon as
possible is a good strategy.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
No animals were harmed in the composition of this message.
Doug Wickström
mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
>In article <hgc7cr$ppf$2...@reader1.panix.com>, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>> And feed the rabbit parsnips or yams instead of carrots!
>>
>>To get a Pak Protector rabbit? I think that would be a very, very
>>bad idea,
>
>I think that getting a rabbit from Breeder to Protector as soon as
>possible is a good strategy.
The good news is that even a Protector rabbit is still a rabbit.
Weighs a few pounds, is tougher to kill, but not unkillable,
doesn't have thumbs.
Might be able to figure out the cage latch, but if it's out of
reach, still can't open it.
Might be death on any raccoons try to get its offspring, though.
--
Doug Wickström
David Loewe, Jr.
<nims...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:34:51 +0000 (UTC),
>mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
>>"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>>Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>> And feed the rabbit parsnips or yams instead of carrots!
>>>
>>>To get a Pak Protector rabbit? I think that would be a very, very
>>>bad idea,
>>
>>I think that getting a rabbit from Breeder to Protector as soon as
>>possible is a good strategy.
>
>The good news
As long as it isn't from Caerbannog...
>is that even a Protector rabbit is still a rabbit.
>Weighs a few pounds, is tougher to kill, but not unkillable,
>doesn't have thumbs.
>
>Might be able to figure out the cage latch, but if it's out of
>reach, still can't open it.
>
>Might be death on any raccoons try to get its offspring, though.
--
"Soldiers, when I give the command to fire, fire straight at my heart.
Wait for the order. It will be my last to you. I protest against my
condemnation. I have fought a hundred battles for France, and not
one against her ... Soldiers, Fire!"
- the Last Words of Michel Ney
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>> To get a Pak Protector rabbit? I think that would be a very, very
>> bad idea,
> I think that getting a rabbit from Breeder to Protector as soon as
> possible is a good strategy.
I disagree. It would devote its considerable intelligence to
protecting its offspring. Very likely it will conclude that mankind
has to be wiped out. And it will be clever enough to accomplish that
within a few weeks.
Keith F. Lynch
> As a libertarian, I'd like to paint Democrats and Republicans with
> the same brush. Giant bank bailouts. More ground war in Asia.
> Pork for whoever gave the biggest campaign contributions. And on
> and on.
Likewise. Record increases in the national debt. Record increases
in the power of government. Reductions in individual liberties.
"Papers please," or even checks to see if you're on a whitelist
(e.g. "E-Verify"), if you want to travel, work, or open a bank
account. Changing the border with Canada from an open border to
a new iron curtain. I could go on and on.
Karl Johanson
news:hgekej$g2q$3...@reader1.panix.com...
> David Harmon <b...@example.invalid> wrote:
>> As a libertarian, I'd like to paint Democrats and Republicans with
>> the same brush. Giant bank bailouts. More ground war in Asia.
>> Pork for whoever gave the biggest campaign contributions. And on
>> and on.
>
> Likewise. Record increases in the national debt. Record increases
> in the power of government. Reductions in individual liberties.
> "Papers please," or even checks to see if you're on a whitelist
> (e.g. "E-Verify"), if you want to travel, work, or open a bank
> account. Changing the border with Canada from an open border to
> a new iron curtain. I could go on and on.
A little less torture with one than the other.
Keith F. Lynch
> A little less torture with one than the other.
I think it's too soon to tell. Obama's been president for less than
a year. His predecessor had eight years in which to do harm.
Karl Johanson
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>> To get a Pak Protector rabbit? I think that would be a very, very
>>> bad idea,
>
>> I think that getting a rabbit from Breeder to Protector as soon as
>> possible is a good strategy.
>
> I disagree. It would devote its considerable intelligence to
> protecting its offspring. Very likely it will conclude that mankind
> has to be wiped out. And it will be clever enough to accomplish that
> within a few weeks.
I dunno. Might be clever enough to wipe out mankind, but I expect it'd take
more than weeks. Even Pttthhhhsststshstsptptptpt Pok needed to learn to ask
questions and his breeder brain was bigger than a rabbits (and he had a
higher brain to body mass ratio and likely had more convelutions in the
brain).
Karl Johanson
Daniel R. Reitman
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>In article <hg6to1$bvh$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>> Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> > Also, ask Republicans if they believe in "the power of prayer"
>> > instead of "spiritual energy", "the will of God" instead of
>> > "astrology", etc. and see what happens to those numbers.
>>
>> It gets worse:
>>
>> ASHEVILLE -- North Carolina's constitution is clear: politicians who
>> deny the existence of God are barred from holding office.
>>
>> Opponents of Cecil Bothwell are seizing on that law to argue he should
>> not be seated as a City Council member today, ...
>>
>
>Interesting question. Has the incorporation doctrine ever been applied
>against a state constitution, as opposed to state legislation?
You don't need to go that far. It's a direct violation of the
Religious Test Clause.
Dan, ad nauseam
David Harmon
Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote,
>about you, but this is pretty damned egregious. It was there. It had
>to be edited out.
Not necessarily. For example, in Forte Agent all you have to do is
highlight the point you are replying to and hit 'R'. No further
editing.
But the real point is that your own precious message is still sitting
intact, right where you left it for anybody to read who wants to,
No part of it is deleted.
David Harmon
Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote,
>
>A little less torture with one than the other.
You really think Janet Reno would be squeamish about a little torture?
David Harmon
F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote,
>Newt Gingrich claimed that "the Republicans have learned some painful
>lessons," when I pointed out to him during Saturday's book signing
>that there wasn't much difference between Republicans and Democrats
>there days,
I think perhaps Newt Gingrich has learned some painful lessons. The
rest of them, not so clear.
David V. Loewe, Jr
According to Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_religious_test_clause, this has always
been seen as a Federal requirement.
"This has been interpreted to mean that no federal employee, whether
elected or appointed, career or political, can be required to adhere to
or accept any religion or belief. This clause immediately follows one
requiring all federal and state officers to take an oath or affirmation
of support to the Constitution."
I'll further note that the various states are free (God forbid) to enact
their own individual state religions.
Nor is North Carolina the only state to have this requirement. The
People's Republic of Massachusetts is amongst the states requiring a
belief in God.
"Six states (Texas, Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, South
Carolina, and Tennessee) do include language in their Bill of Rights,
Declaration of Rights, or in the body of their constitutions that
requires state office-holders to have particular religious beliefs;
while one state (Pennsylvania) specifically protects office-holders with
religious belief, remaining silent on whether those without such beliefs
are also protected."
--
"Quantum particles: the dreams that stuff is made of."
- David Moser
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:34:07 -0600 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David V.
>Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote,
>>about you, but this is pretty damned egregious. It was there. It had
>>to be edited out.
>
>Not necessarily. For example, in Forte Agent all you have to do is
>highlight the point you are replying to and hit 'R'. No further
>editing.
Look at my headers, Mr. Harmon. Don't try and teach your grandmother to
suck eggs.
Furthermore, you acknowledge that it IS editing.
>But the real point is that your own precious message is still sitting
>intact, right where you left it for anybody to read who wants to,
I was noting that it had been deleted from *his* post. Most people,
IME, don't normally go back up the thread to see what has been edited
out.
>No part of it is deleted.
--
"You don't win a war by dying for your country, you win a war by
making the other poor bastard die for his country."
- George Smith Patton, Jr.
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:02:05 -0800 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "Karl
Perhaps Karl didn't see the post I made noting that the Obama
Administration hadn't given up the practice of rendition?
--
"People, don't you understand - the child needs a helping hand
Or he'll grow to be an angry young man some day."
Scott Davis
Paul Ciszek
In article <g8ani5polvnq4lqto...@4ax.com>,
David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>I'll further note that the various states are free (God forbid) to enact
>their own individual state religions.
The Bill of Rights is also binding on state governments. The whole
concept of "states rights" was negated by the Lee v. Grant decision
anyway.
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
David Loewe, Jr.
Ciszek) wrote:
>David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>I'll further note that the various states are free (God forbid) to enact
>>their own individual state religions.
>
>The Bill of Rights is also binding on state governments.
Not in certain things it is not.
>The whole concept of "states rights" was negated by the Lee v. Grant
>decision anyway.
Heh...
--
"Leave your worries behind...
'Cause rain, shine don't mind
We're ridin' on the Groove Line tonight."
Rod Temperton
Keith F. Lynch
> You really think Janet Reno would be squeamish about a little
> torture?
Ah, Janet Reno. It was almost worth putting up with eight years of
Bush to be rid of her.
"What's the difference between child abuse and child murder?"
"The BATF does not commit child abuse."
Keith F. Lynch
> Religious Test Clause.
Does that apply to states, or only to the federal government?
Doug Wickström
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>David Harmon <b...@example.invalid> wrote:
>> "Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>> A little less torture with one than the other.
>
>> You really think Janet Reno would be squeamish about a little
>> torture?
>
>Ah, Janet Reno. It was almost worth putting up with eight years of
>Bush to be rid of her.
>
>"What's the difference between child abuse and child murder?"
>
>"The BATF does not commit child abuse."
I'm not at all certain that the BATFE commits child murder,
either. However, the FBI and the US Marshall's Service certainly
do.
Anyway, BATFE used to be under the Treasury Department, as they
were supposed to be taxation enforcers, and so not under Janet
Reno's direction.
--
Doug Wickström
Karl Johanson
news:sofni598munfc3hno...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 07:44:52 -0800, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:02:05 -0800 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "Karl
>>Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote,
>>>
>>>A little less torture with one than the other.
>>
>>You really think Janet Reno would be squeamish about a little torture?
>
> Perhaps Karl didn't see the post I made noting that the Obama
> Administration hadn't given up the practice of rendition?
Perhaps you didn't see my use of the term "a little less."
Karl Johanson
Keith F. Lynch
> I'm not at all certain that the BATFE commits child murder, either.
> However, the FBI and the US Marshall's Service certainly do.
> Anyway, BATFE used to be under the Treasury Department, as they
> were supposed to be taxation enforcers, and so not under Janet
> Reno's direction.
Thanks. You're right, it was Janet Reno's FBI who incinerated the
allegedly abused children, not the BATF(E). It's been a while.
(Did you change how you post? Your last name used to appear perfectly
on my terminal, but now it's badly mangled.)
Doug Wickström
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Doug wrote:
>> I'm not at all certain that the BATFE commits child murder, either.
>> However, the FBI and the US Marshall's Service certainly do.
>
>> Anyway, BATFE used to be under the Treasury Department, as they
>> were supposed to be taxation enforcers, and so not under Janet
>> Reno's direction.
>
>Thanks. You're right, it was Janet Reno's FBI who incinerated the
>allegedly abused children, not the BATF(E). It's been a while.
>
>(Did you change how you post? Your last name used to appear perfectly
>on my terminal, but now it's badly mangled.)
Look at the headers.
--
Doug Wickström
David Friedman
nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> In article <g8ani5polvnq4lqto...@4ax.com>,
> David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> >I'll further note that the various states are free (God forbid) to enact
> >their own individual state religions.
>
> The Bill of Rights is also binding on state governments. The whole
> concept of "states rights" was negated by the Lee v. Grant decision
> anyway.
Insofar as it was negated, it was by the post-civil war amendments and
the doctrine of incorporation. But I gather that the exact limits of
that doctrine are still unclear--for instance how far it is applicable
to the 2nd amendment.
But given the doctrine, I don't think the state governments are still
free to enact state religions.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_
David Loewe, Jr.
<karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 07:44:52 -0800, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com>
>> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:02:05 -0800 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "Karl
>>>Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote,
>>>>
>>>>A little less torture with one than the other.
>>>
>>>You really think Janet Reno would be squeamish about a little torture?
>>
>> Perhaps Karl didn't see the post I made noting that the Obama
>> Administration hadn't given up the practice of rendition?
>
>Perhaps you didn't see my use of the term "a little less."
I don't see any reduction there. They're just outsourcing it.
--
"You tell 'em I'M coming... and Hell's coming with me, you hear?!
Hell's coming with me!"
- Kurt Russell as Wyatt Earp in Tombstone
Karl Johanson
news:c1loi592jt5or3v6f...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:42:56 -0800, "Karl Johanson"
> <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote
>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 07:44:52 -0800, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:02:05 -0800 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "Karl
>>>>Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote,
>>>>>
>>>>>A little less torture with one than the other.
>>>>
>>>>You really think Janet Reno would be squeamish about a little torture?
>>>
>>> Perhaps Karl didn't see the post I made noting that the Obama
>>> Administration hadn't given up the practice of rendition?
>>
>>Perhaps you didn't see my use of the term "a little less."
>
> I don't see any reduction there. They're just outsourcing it.
There was outsourced and domestic before. Domestic seems to have have been
reduced. If there was an accompanying increase in outsourcing, I'd be very
interested in the sources.
Karl Johanson
Daniel R. Reitman
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Daniel R. Reitman <drei...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>> You don't need to go that far. It's a direct violation of the
>> Religious Test Clause.
>
>Does that apply to states, or only to the federal government?
Actually, it appears the Court ducked that question. In Torcaso v.
Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), it held that a similar provision in the
Maryland Constitution violated the Free Exercise Clause. The Court
declined to rule on the question of whether the Religious Test Clause
applied to the states. 367 U.S. at 489 n 1.
Dan, ad nauseam
David V. Loewe, Jr
<karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:42:56 -0800, "Karl Johanson"
>> <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote
>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 07:44:52 -0800, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:02:05 -0800 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "Karl
>>>>>Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A little less torture with one than the other.
>>>>>
>>>>>You really think Janet Reno would be squeamish about a little torture?
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps Karl didn't see the post I made noting that the Obama
>>>> Administration hadn't given up the practice of rendition?
>>>
>>>Perhaps you didn't see my use of the term "a little less."
>>
>> I don't see any reduction there. They're just outsourcing it.
>
>There was outsourced and domestic before. Domestic seems to have have been
>reduced.
What do you mean by "domestic"?
What is your source?
>If there was an accompanying increase in outsourcing, I'd be very
>interested in the sources.
--
"Man, I'd give anything to be as articulate as Steve Jobs."
- Bill Gates